Social Security

[392cobra]

(This is a cut & paste from an e-mail from my Dad.)

If there is anyone out there who doesn't have a clue, this is the best visual presentation

Now don't be mad at old people, (or me) just remember who did this......



Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945


Our Social Security


Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,


2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,


3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,


4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.


Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:



----------THEN-------------------------



Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961


If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.


If I recall correctly, it was a Democratically controlled Congress.


From what I understand, Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.



-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------


Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President,Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969


Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?



Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President


Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001



Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001



Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?


Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie- breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the USA ........






-----------------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!-------------------------------------------------



James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981
Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?


AND MY FAVORITE ANSWER:


That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. JIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.



IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS:


THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYGAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM…..EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER


PAID A DIME INTO IT!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!


And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!


If enough people read this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve! . Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?


Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

[427sharpe]

This is a 50/50 deal...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socia...ty/changes.asp

[Dan40]

OK, who checks up on snopes??

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Dan40

OK, who checks up on snopes??

SS is here to stay and it has been studied to death...and the solution(s) is well know....means test...cut benefits....increase taxes.....the only problem is the inability of the Congress to do anything that will upset seniors...but...if history is any guide they will act when they have to...at some point the country will have to set priorities and live within it's income just like every family in the world.

[Anthony]

the major common lie about SS is the amount that each of us pay. 6.2% is often quoted, but in actuality, we all pay about 12.4%, as either our employer is paying that, or if you are self-employed, you pay the additional 6.2%.

What a great accounting scam.

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Anthony

the major common lie about SS is the amount that each of us pay. 6.2% is often quoted, but in actuality, we all pay about 12.4%, as either our employer is paying that, or if you are self-employed, you pay the additional 6.2%.

What a great accounting scam.

Assuming , like health insurance, that you would get that money in wages. Like the poor, SS will always be with us because a significant number of people are not able to defer gratification and invest in their future. If you are 50 and you don't have sufficient wealth to quit working (if you want) you have made some very bad choices in the last 30 years. Of course, there are some victims of circumstances and/or bad luck but damn few. Like you, I know beer truck drivers and roofers and plumbers that are millionairs because they were honest and dependable and worked hard ..bought homes... and had the good sense to invest in their future when they were young and able to take advantage of compounding intrest and the tax code. Hell, I never bought a lunch for 30 years and drank coffee out of my thermos. I don't draw SS. Some of the kids I went to school with went into the Army right out of ROTC and retired as Captains, Majors etc..with a pension in their 40's...took a civil service job in Defense with a veterans preference and were eligible for another pension at 55 and then took another job to earn their quarters... I am likely wrong on the facts cuz Reagan put a end to some of the double and triple dipping...but those guys were smart !! Yes, they were all guys in those days..

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

SS is here to stay and it has been studied to death...and the solution(s) is well know....means test...cut benefits....increase taxes.....the only problem is the inability of the Congress to do anything that will upset seniors...but...if history is any guide they will act when they have to...at some point the country will have to set priorities and live within it's income just like every family in the world.

And how does any of that relate to "Who checks up on snopes?"

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

Assuming , like health insurance, that you would get that money in wages..

I'm guessing that the government knows that imposing any type of new tax will always have a backlash. I guess one way to minimize the backlash is to split the tax in half, half for the employee, coming out of their own wages. And the other half, demand that the employer, make the employer basically "give" a raise to all of their employees, although, the employees never see that raise, as it goes straight to the government.

What a beautiful system.

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Dan40

And how does any of that relate to "Who checks up on snopes?"

The only thing that Snopes has to sell is it's reputation for accuracy...if they lose it...they are out of business....I assume they are self regulating as it is essential that they are accurate if they want to stay in business... they don't have to take sides..

[HI Cobra]

[quote=Anthony;992415]I'm guessing that the government knows that imposing any type of new tax will always have a backlash. I guess one way to minimize the backlash is to split the tax in half, half for the employee, coming out of their own wages. And the other half, demand that the employer, make the employer basically "give" a raise to all of their employees, although, the employees never see that raise, as it goes straight to the government.

This has been going on for years. The biggest problem is that the government
keeps robbing the pot. Adding ILLEGAL aliens to the handouts does a lot to
escalate the situation. We are so doomed. All these law makers doing this
are not impacted by SS so what do they have to loose? MHO

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

The only thing that Snopes has to sell is it's reputation for accuracy...if they lose it...they are out of business....I assume they are self regulating as it is essential that they are accurate if they want to stay in business... they don't have to take sides..

Is that a long drawn out way to say "no one?"

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Dan40

Is that a long drawn out way to say "no one?"

ANYONE THAT WANTS TO...

[Jamo]

Gents...por favor.

[Fordzilla]

I thought Jamo kept snopes in line

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Dan40

And how does any of that relate to "Who checks up on snopes?"

From snopes.com's FAQ:

* Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

* A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by computerworks

From snopes.com's FAQ:

Quote:
* Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

* A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.

Well, that makes it a left-wing propaganda site, right?

[VRM]

I have a friend who went and raided his 401K in order to buy some stuff around the house (big flatscreen TV, furniture, hot tub and new deck). He took out a loan from his 401K, and now is pissing and moaning that he has to pay it back. He is also bent out of shape because he thinks that there will be nothing left in SS when he retires (he is 49ish now I think). Somehow people/administrations think that it is ok to 'borrow' from your retirement to go buy a new TV.
It frightens me to think that there are many more in this country who think the same way.

Steve

[HI Cobra]

Those people are known as grass hoppers. Save your $ first, then buy.